Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Friday, August 30, 2013

Cui bono?

Assad was winning his civil war. Then came the video footage of an alleged CW attack on Ghouta, a suburb of Damascus. The US government says it has proof that Assad launched that attack on civilians -- even though the attack served no discernible military purpose and could serve only to draw America into the war. (And even though the evidence suggests that the rockets were fired from a rebel-held area.)

But since the US will not show its claimed proof, the world questioned the wisdom of airstrikes.

And now we have a BBC Panorama report, replete with horrifying video, that Syrian jet fighters dropped napalm on schoolchildren.

I fail to see how Assad could ever hope to gain any military advantage by dropping Napalm on children. However, I can easily see how the anti-Assad forces could gain a propaganda advantage from footage of Napalmed children. Perhaps new information may force me to revise my response, but on first smell, this thing reeks of WWI-style atrocity reportage.

The exquisitely convenient timing of this release tells you all you need to know. So does our first, best question: Cui bono? Who benefits?
Are you saying it's similar to the complete BS testimony about Iraqi soldiers pulling babies out of incubators in Kuwait in 1990?
"...WWI-style atrocity reportage." Orwell wrote long ago about the low quality of propaganda during the first world war. I read his essay many years ago, but I remember he used the example of stories about German soldiers who, while invading Belgium on their way to France, took time out for "raping nuns on tables." Orwell couldn't understand why that phrase was repeated so often. What made doing it on tables worse than otherwise? Apparently we haven't progressed all that much when it comes to war propaganda.

Who benefits? Well obviously the organ-eating, head-chopping freedom fighters of the Free Syrian Army as well as the Arab governments who support them (Saudis? Qatar? and ??). The other beneficiaries would be the only country in the Middle East that the US has no intention of destroying or destabilizing: Israel. Unless Obama sees a bright light on the road to Damascus and gets the blind staggers, it's on. After that, it's Teheran, Karachi, and Jakarta, unless all the US combat forces have overdosed or suicided before then.
More dog wagging, no doubt. I imagine either the rebels did it, it's old footage from some other middle eastern country, or our own intelligence agencies did it (which, of course, includes Mossad and Britains intel).

We all know who benefits......military contractors and US friendly arab nations (oh yeah....and Israel).

This is all so blatantly obviously staged (at the cost of lives and people, as usual) I can't believe any person with half a brain would fall for it anymore. It's also obvious to me that Obama doesn't call the shots around here....who does is another question entirely with a number of possible answers.
You keep saying that Assad is winning but I haven't seen any source for that opinion. Contra is The Economist
Oh fer chrissakes -- do I have to cite a source when I say the sky is blue? My point has been made in any number of articles.

...and there are lots of other links awaiting anyone who hits Google and types the magic words "Assad winning."

There were scads of similar article during the FIRST big chemical weapons controversy.
In addition to the Economist, there is this article, but the Washington Post may have it right
The long and short of it is that we simply don't know who is winning, who will win or what will happen in the aftermath, whenever that is. But to say Assad is obviously winning is obviously premature. I don't have enough information to decide what the correct next US move should be. However, to say that since Bush and his crew were idiots that therefore we should do nothing is unfair.
By the way, here is the problem trying to understand what is going on generally in the Middle East and specifically in Syria
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic